On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Ruby <r...@hush.com> wrote:

>
>
> How did quantum mechanics come about?
>
> Experimental phenomenon occurred in blackbody radiation that could not be
> explained by the conventional physical theories of the day.
>
>

Right, but all the anomalies that led to QM were robust, reproducible, and
widely (even universally) accepted. Anyone could measure the blackbody
spectrum and confirm the UV catastrophe. That's not the case with cold
fusion.


And the development of QM theories to explain the anomalies were accepted
as fast as they could be developed, because they fit the evidence, and made
successful predictions. The whole amazing development of a completely new
and non-intuitive physical theory took about as long as people have been
spinning their wheels in cold fusion (with the benefit of a century of
progress). And in cold fusion it's still 1989.


There really is no resemblance to cold fusion.


> Also, the early "planetary" model of an atom with a central nucleus and an
> orbiting electron did not fit the conventional theories of the day.
>
> The conventional theory of the day said that as the electron moved, it
> would lose energy,
>

Just to get it right, the theory said that an accelerating electron loses
energy, not just a moving one. (circular motion involves acceleration)




> That is what is being said here about cold fusion/LENR/LANR/quantum
> fusion/anomalous heat and transmutations.
>
> Current nuclear theory does not explain ALL the many effects that are seen
> in this science.
>
>

The problem is the evidence for many claimed effects is too weak to be
accepted. The absence of a theory wouldn't matter if the evidence were
robust as is clear from your example of QM and countless others. But when
the evidence is erratic, *and* other evidence suggest the likelihood is
vanishingly small, then it's likely not real. It's likely pathological,
which is why it just limps along for decades with nothing to show for it.


>
> Please don't give up Mark.  Your voice is needed.
>
>
This is the problem with naive cold fusion advocacy. They seem to think
it's an issue like abortion or capital punishment that is settled by
lobbying. But what it needs is better evidence, not better argument. All
the gullible journalists in the world won't change the situation, but a
single reproducible and accessible experiment could. I doubt there will
ever be one.

Reply via email to